Jump to content

Logging an archived Virtual Cache


Rumager
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

What do people think about logging an archived Virtual cache?

 

I know a virtual that was recently archived. For some months, (during which time I visited the location), it was not possible to gather certain information required to log the cache and so it was archived. However, that situation will change, and the information will be available again.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

It's possible, but if you feel that it's cheating then why would you do it? If the CO doesn't like it them your log will get deleted.

 

Is that even possible? If so, then play the way you see fit. There aren't any rules, just GUIDELINES.

 

Which can be enforced like rules. For most people they should've thought of as rules.

Link to comment

What do people think about logging an archived Virtual cache?

 

(snip)

Thoughts?

Interesting...I'd log it, assuming I could meet all the requirements that existed when the cache was alive. For example, if the original requirement was "e-mail me this information and don't log the cache until I reply", then I would do that. If I didn't get a reply, well "meh"...it's only a number. Of course if the cache page says something like "email me the information and log the cache...if the info is wrong I'll just delete your log", then I'd consider that open season to log it (having sent the email)!

 

I think I'm having a bit of a rebellious streak here, keeping a virtual alive in spite of Groundspeak's best efforts to kill them off!

 

Assuming you're local(ish), if you don't get permission to log the cache, you or someone else could always place an offset using the same information. Maybe call it "Tribute to...(original cache name)". If I was going to do that, I'd just check that the original CO wasn't planning something similar.

 

(edited for spelling, and to add...if anyone is thinking "would you attempt to log an archived physical cache?"...if I'd found it, and signed the log book, and had complied with any other ALRs from when the cache was alive, yes. Again, if the CO wants to delete my log, that's their right.

Edited by Paul G0TLG
Link to comment
I think I'm having a bit of a rebellious streak here, keeping a virtual alive in spite of Groundspeak's best efforts to kill them off!

 

Actually that should read

 

I think I'm having a bit of a rebellious streak here, keeping a virtual alive in spite of the Virtual Cache Owners best efforts to kill them off!

 

As there is no attempt to hunt down Hunt down and Kill of Virtual caches, where the Owner is not complying with the Guidelines. They are dying from natural wastage, when complaints are made about Virtual logging, which the CO is not Policing. Or when a Needs Archive Log is made to them

 

If you currently own a virtual or webcam cache, you must maintain the cache listing and logs, respond to inquiries from cachers, and must check the physical location periodically. Abandoned caches will likely be archived by Groundspeak. Grandfathered caches will not be unarchived.

 

  1. [/url]

I'm aware of a couple of Grandfathered In caches, which have been Disabled for a extended period, due to circumstances beyond the Owners control. But where the owners, are complying with the Guidelines, and monitoring the situation.

 

 

 

 

Also several years ago, when for a short Period, Grandfathered In caches, were accidentally Unlocked, allowing adoption. A number of UK ones, were in fact adopted over to Active cachers, after they got given the ;) by some one.

 

So the evidence completely contradicts your statement, especially as the requirement for Grandfathered In Cache Owners, to log into GC once a Month, is no longer present in the Guidelines :o which if Groundspeak were actively killing them off, would have been left in.

 

 

 

 

If you wish to keep Grandfathered In caches active, contact the Owners, and request, that they maintain the caches, including Policing the Found Logs, and they will be around for a long time. If the owner is ignoring their responsibilities, then you can hardly expect them to remain active.

 

 

 

 

 

Deci

 

 

 

Link to comment
I think I'm having a bit of a rebellious streak here, keeping a virtual alive in spite of Groundspeak's best efforts to kill them off!

 

Actually that should read

 

I think I'm having a bit of a rebellious streak here, keeping a virtual alive in spite of the Virtual Cache Owners best efforts to kill them off!

Yeah, you're right, maybe I let my enthusiasm for rebellion get in the way of accuracy there...sorry Deci! I meant to refer to GS's policy of not allowing new virts, and letting existing ones die by not allowing adoption when VCOs left the game - I didn't intend to refer to this particular cache, although I know my wording didn't give that impression.

Link to comment

...

So the evidence completely contradicts your statement...

...

If you wish to keep Grandfathered In caches active, contact the Owners,

...

I'm with Paul, and the evidence of Virtuals being nolonger allowed, and not being allowed to be adopted over to me is evidence that GS aims to kill them off. You can't lay it all at the hands of COs, COs come and go - some die off, some move areas, some just find other things to do in life. With any other cache type a CO would be allowed to adopt over a great/historic cache or if that wasn't desirable another CO could come along and replace it - those avenues are closed to Virtual owners hence ensuring that eventually, over time, all Virtuals will be archived.

 

When GS invented Waymarking they closed down all locationless caches. When they invented Challenges I believe it was their intention to eventually close down all Virtuals, the precursor to which was to prevent new ones and prevent adoptions, however Challenges were such an unmitigated disaster that that avenue was closed to them and hence we're left in the current limbo where it will be a long painful death.

 

I would nolonger ask for Virtuals to come back as there would be too many equivalents of film pots thrown behind every roadsign, but I think they should be adoptable. Making them adoptable would mean that those which are exceptional would find new owners and the less worthy ones would eventually fade, but at least the good ones would be more likely to live a long and happy life.

Link to comment

As this post contains, my own personal opinions, it is being made under my Member account

 

Sorry another correction, Locationless caches, were removed well before Waymarking was developed.

 

Locationless caches, webcam caches, Virtual caches, were developed as Database Fillers, at a time when there was virtually no physical caches around. Groundspeak decided to go back to the core roots for GC, that of Hiding and Finding Physical caches.

 

One of the issues for Locationless caches, was at that point in time, the Site was basically a Hobby Site, using Hobby Scratch Code. It was not stable, and could not cope with large numbers accessing the Database. Which lead to the site constantly crashing (for new members who moan about GC being down. In the early days, it was down more than up. And it could take you until Mid week to log the few caches you'd found at the weekend). So something had to give, and when you had one single Locationless cache, with if memory serves me correctly several thousand Finds (the Yellow Jeep), every time someone went to that cache to log it, the site took a major hit (compare that todays usage, I've got 61,394 logs under my Reviewer account, and it still takes over a minute to load them all, using modern connections, Servers and PC)

 

As for Virtual caches, it's amazing how those demanding their return, always ignore the issues, which actually caused Groundspeak to stop accepting them for Listing.

 

True examples being "Name the make or Colour of the Trainer/Tennis Ball/Golf Ball, I've thrown in the Woods". So a attempt to introduce the "WoW" factor was brought in. That was basically, if you had just one book on your coffee table, which all your visitors raved about, the Virtual would have to be in it.

 

The issue being that the "WoW" factor could not be defined, because everyone's point of view, about "WoW" is different. That lead to so many Virtual submissions, going to appeals, and getting refused. It was unbelievable. And was bogging down the Lackeys, dealing with all those appeals.

 

So again something had to give, and Groundspeak stopped accepting Virtual caches for Listing. But unlike Locationless caches did not remove them, which they could have done at that point in time.

 

As to why Waymarking is not developed, into the site it could be? My own personal opinion is that, because only a core group are regular users. Groundspeak sees no justification in Developing it at the present time. And instead throws all resources into GC

 

Honest opinion, and one which would satisfy everyone, including the numbers hounds? Groundspeak, needs to chuck a load of resources, into the fabled Groundspeak V2 Portal Site. Where GC/Wherigo/Waymarking are all in tabs on one portal site. With facilities for combined stats to be displayed. But that would need huge resources put into Wherigo to make it into the project it could have been (and was during Beta Testing, but that's another story) and Waymarking.

 

So instead of demanding a slice of the cake with the return of Virtual caches, people need to be getting together, and as a Group, Petitioning Groundspeak to develop the V2 Groundspeak Portal Site, and Wherigo and Waymarking sites. And so get the whole cake.

 

End of Personal opinion

 

Dave

ps: I have posted similar on FB before.

Link to comment

As to why Waymarking is not developed, into the site it could be? My own personal opinion is that, because only a core group are regular users. Groundspeak sees no justification in Developing it at the present time. And instead throws all resources into GC

My own opinion is that Groundspeak developed this quite well and then moved on to the next thing. The little tweaks that would have made it appeal more to the masses were known but not applied, simply because they'd moved resources onto more new and exciting things (such as Wherigo).

Honest opinion, and one which would satisfy everyone, including the numbers hounds? Groundspeak, needs to chuck a load of resources, into the fabled Groundspeak V2 Portal Site. Where GC/Wherigo/Waymarking are all in tabs on one portal site. With facilities for combined stats to be displayed. But that would need huge resources put into Wherigo to make it into the project it could have been (and was during Beta Testing, but that's another story) and Waymarking.

I took part in Beta Testing and created a Wherigo some time before the first "official" one. I was disappointed in Groundspeak's methods and attitudes during this and agree with the "project it could have been" comment. This also gave me some insight into how Groundspeak work (as did going to meet them), and I stand by my assessment that they tend to throw together a half-baked version of something and then move on before completing the job. "Project Phoenix" was not even half-baked (this is the one that was supposed to bring together all the strands in one centralised account) and in my opinion they did have the resources to complete this but got distracted about more interesting (to them) stuff.

 

On the original question; if the site allows you to do it then it must be officially OK. I'm not sure why the CO would object, either.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

What do people think about logging an archived Virtual cache?

 

I know a virtual that was recently archived. For some months, (during which time I visited the location), it was not possible to gather certain information required to log the cache and so it was archived. However, that situation will change, and the information will be available again.

 

Thoughts?

 

So, I also know a traditional cache that was recently archived.

I visited the location but was unable to find it.

But I now know where it should have been.

 

My thoughts.

Don't log it matey! :D

Link to comment

As this post contains, my own personal opinions, it is being made under my Member account

 

Sorry another correction, Locationless caches, were removed well before Waymarking was developed.

...

As for Virtual caches, it's amazing how those demanding their return, always ignore the issues, which actually caused Groundspeak to stop accepting them for Listing.

...

 

 

 

This link: http://web.archive.org/web/20051106120003/http://www.Waymarking.com/

shows that Waymarking.com was up and running on November 6th 2005.

 

This link: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=c7732b4a-00fa-481c-93af-2d66c91f2b06

shows that locationless caches were still active and being logged on 3rd Jan 2006. And that just happens to be the latest log on the last locationless cache I found, I sincerely doubt that it is the last ever log on a locationless log.

 

It seems clear to me that the demise of locationless caches is tied in to the evolution of Waymarking.com.

 

Re the third statement - I agree and I said above I wouldn't want them back for exactly the reasons you give, however that doesn't preclude allowing the existing virtuals to be adopted.

 

Edit to tone it down a bit, as in the cold light of day it came across as personal attack somewhat, for which I apologise.

Edited by MartyBartfast
Link to comment

What do people think about logging an archived Virtual cache?

 

I know a virtual that was recently archived. For some months, (during which time I visited the location), it was not possible to gather certain information required to log the cache and so it was archived. However, that situation will change, and the information will be available again.

 

Thoughts?

 

So, I also know a traditional cache that was recently archived.

I visited the location but was unable to find it.

But I now know where it should have been.

 

My thoughts.

Don't log it matey! :D

 

Hmmm Not sure which side of the fence I fall on here.

 

I have logged traditional style caches that have been archived, normally because I have an out of date pocket query, and in one case an archived cache in a location about three feet from where someone had planted a new one, and I was going for the FTF. I logged that with the owner's permission/encouragement.

 

On the other hand I called in for a pint in a pub that had was a venue for an event three weeks before, but did not bother to log that 'find'

 

I suspect I would probably log it if I could, I had fulfilled the requirements, and would get the smiley.

 

I also find multiple variants of the YOSM (Ye Olde Survey Monument) moveable virtual, so Yes go for it

Link to comment

I think it's right to log an archived cache generally. If you've found it then you should be able to log. Especially where:

:unsure: The system allows it. I do sometimes argue that where locked for historic politics, they should no longer be locked.

:unsure: You know that there is nothing untoward about the situation e.g. it wasn't archived because it was causing problems locally. A problem with old PQ is it might still be there and you found it yet it was archived for other reasons than lack of maintenance.

:unsure:

 

Gradnfathered virtuals are great to keep alive. I wouldn't want new ones and I think the death of challenges only shows the route virtuals was going and to what extent and therefore right to put a hold on virtuals. That being said, grandfathered virtuals are now generally of great value and have survived because they have that underterminable wow factor that they should be preserved. I would very much like to see a vote on the situation about getting virtuals adoptable. There was a very good point in the thread earlier where people move on from the hobby and dare I say cannot maintain through no fault of their own.

 

P.S. (just because I must be in a biting mood), events are not caches. Yes I believe they should be in the stats as they are part of caching but are date/time dependant and once that is over they don't exist except in hopefully fond memories.

Link to comment

So, I also know a traditional cache that was recently archived.

I visited the location but was unable to find it.

But I now know where it should have been.

 

My thoughts.

Don't log it matey! :D

 

But if you happened to walk past the site after it was archived and you had a quick look and found it, would you log it? I expect I would.

 

For a virtual the answer or requirement is still may still be insitu just the cache page maintenance was lacking. (perhaps that's not true in the example of the ball thrown into the woods :rolleyes: )

 

Edited as I didn't mean is always in situ but is on the occasions when I would log an archived virtual.

Edited by metal-bijou
Link to comment

Interesting comments, especially from MP. I came into the game after the demise of locationless caches, but for what it's worth and from what I can recall, most, if not all of my Virtual finds have had a bit of a Wow Factor. I don't think I've looked at any and thought "Why has someone put a virtual here just for the sake of it?" I hope they stay for as long as possible as although relatively few and far between, I love them.

 

As to logging an archived one, I don't think I would, although there was one I visited where I got the information, but the actual feature had been removed for H&S reasons and it was archived shortly afterwards. The YOSM one is a cache I could have logged on several occasions, but I personally prefer to log unique finds, so have restricted it to the one smiley.

Link to comment

I had the chance of FTF on a couple of Archived Virtuals last year... I didn't bother in the end though. They are still loggable for anyone who wants to risk it. B)

 

I know a cacher who logged a find on a different Archived Virtual last year but his log was deleted and the listing locked.

 

Mark

Edited by Delta68
Link to comment

I came into the game after the demise of locationless caches, but for what it's worth and from what I can recall, most, if not all of my Virtual finds have had a bit of a Wow Factor. I don't think I've looked at any and thought "Why has someone put a virtual here just for the sake of it?" I hope they stay for as long as possible as although relatively few and far between, I love them.

Virtuals and locationless were moved to Waymarking just when reviewers were getting inundated with them (at the expense of having time to review geocaches). The initial idea was to restrict approval to only those with a "wow" factor, but that was quickly seen to be unworkable. Hence the remaining ones mostly being of relatively good quality.

 

As to logging an archived one, I don't think I would, although there was one I visited where I got the information, but the actual feature had been removed for H&S reasons and it was archived shortly afterwards.

Your example seems like a good one; although in principle I don't see the problem with logging an archived virtual, if the feature is no longer in place or is inaccessible then it seems rather pointless anyway. And surely then, when you e-mail the cache owner with your photo or answer he's likely to be unavailable or refuse to accept your log.

 

Rather than attempting to log a virtual I usually use the "Nearby Waymarks" search and log the waymark instead. Or, if there is no waymark, it's a great opportunity to log a category.

 

An example would be Help! Peter's in the Rushes. (S Notts) . There's already a waymark here (St Peter's in the Rushes) and it's easier to log than the virtual, but you could also take the opportunity to log the church (Church categories).

 

Or, if you like webcam virtuals, London - Beatles Abbey Road and Abbey Road Webcam.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

What do people think about logging an archived Virtual cache?

 

I know a virtual that was recently archived. For some months, (during which time I visited the location), it was not possible to gather certain information required to log the cache and so it was archived. However, that situation will change, and the information will be available again.

 

Thoughts?

 

Have at it.... like it even matters.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...